Greenpeace Found Liable For $300 Million In Damages Over Dakota Access Protests—Risking Bankruptcy

Forbes - Mar 19th, 2025

A North Dakota jury has ruled against Greenpeace, finding the environmental advocacy group liable for defamation and other charges stemming from its protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury awarded Energy Transfer, the Texas-based pipeline company, approximately $300 million in damages. This verdict follows accusations against Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing, nuisance, and civil conspiracy, among other claims. The decision raises concerns about the financial stability of Greenpeace, as the group warns it could face bankruptcy due to the hefty damages.

The case highlights the ongoing tensions between environmental advocacy groups and the fossil fuel industry. Greenpeace's involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests was part of a larger movement against fossil fuel infrastructure that has sparked significant legal and financial battles. The ruling could set a precedent for how activist organizations are held accountable in similar cases, potentially influencing future environmental protests and the strategies of advocacy groups. It underscores the delicate balance between activism and the legal challenges faced by organizations opposing large corporations.

Greenpeace Defamation Legal Battle Dakota Access Pipeline Energy Transfer Environmental Activism

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant report on a significant legal verdict involving Greenpeace and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. It accurately presents the main facts of the case, including the jury's decision and the potential financial impact on Greenpeace. However, the article lacks balance, as it does not include perspectives from Greenpeace or independent legal experts. The source quality is somewhat limited due to the lack of specific citations and direct quotes from primary sources. While the article is clear and accessible, it could benefit from more detailed background information and analysis of the legal proceedings. Overall, the story effectively highlights a controversial and impactful issue, but it could be improved by incorporating a wider range of perspectives and more in-depth reporting.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the jury's verdict against Greenpeace, stating that the organization was found liable for defamation and other charges related to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. However, there are discrepancies in the reported damages awarded to Energy Transfer, with the story stating "hundreds of millions" and a specific figure of $300 million. This contrasts with other reports suggesting a different amount, indicating a need for precise verification. Additionally, the story correctly notes Greenpeace's warning about potential financial ruin, aligning with Greenpeace's official statements.

Balance

The story focuses primarily on the verdict against Greenpeace and the financial implications for the organization. It lacks perspectives from Greenpeace or its supporters, which could provide a more balanced view of the situation. The article also does not include any statements or responses from Energy Transfer or independent legal experts, which would help present a more comprehensive picture of the case and its broader implications.

Clarity

The language and structure of the article are clear and concise, making it easy for readers to understand the main points. The story effectively communicates the key facts about the jury's verdict and the potential financial consequences for Greenpeace. However, the lack of detailed explanation about the legal claims and proceedings may leave some readers with unanswered questions.

Source quality

The story references multiple reports, including the Associated Press, which is a credible source. However, it does not provide specific citations or direct quotes from these sources, making it difficult to assess the full reliability of the information presented. The lack of explicit attribution to primary sources or official statements from involved parties diminishes the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the legal case and the potential financial impact on Greenpeace. However, it lacks transparency in terms of detailed explanation of the legal proceedings, the specific charges, and the basis for the jury's decision. Additionally, there is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that may affect the reporting.

Sources

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/energy-transfer-lawsuit-verdict/